Moral relativists who love Edahn

[Ivy]

It's a sign of moral maturity, to me, to be able to simultaneously hold strong personal morals and recognize that you are but one human being among billions, coming from a specific place and time, and that nothing makes your personal morals closer to universal truth than anyone else. People in the West in five hundred years will consider some things barbaric that we see as very mundane.

 

[substitute]

the only human right I would support as inviolable is to have a choice over the things that happen to you, within the boundaries of known physical possibility. But this has great implications on many other things.

If a member of a BDSM community, certified sane, makes a free and informed choice to give up or surrender their freedom in certain areas to another person and become their slave, then it is not wrong for them to do so, nor is it wrong, IMO, for their 'master' to take on that role, if that's what they wish. However, if a person is captured by soldiers and taken against their will to a place where they're sold without any say in the matter to a master not of their choosing, then that is wrong. It's not 'freedom' that I see as being the human right that's been violated there, but choice.

If a person of sound mind makes a free and informed choice to die, then IMO it is not wrong for someone to assist them (youthenasia). But if a person has not chosen to surrender their life before the natural time, but somebody takes it nonetheless, then it is wrong.

If a person chooses to knowingly take their drinking water from a river that contains natural deposits of a toxin that causes brain damage, then that person, despite having somewhat incomprehensible motives perhaps, is free to do so. However if a person decides to pollute a river so that thousands of people who rely on it for their drinking water are forced against their will to either drink poisoned water or move to a place with a cleaner water supply, then the person polluting the river is IMO doing wrong.

If a person chooses to surrender a portion of their income to a government that promises to, in return for the taxes paid, care for and protect that person, then the government is not wrong to take that tax. However if governments of nation states monopolize the entire planet so that nobody has any choice but to live in a nation state and pay taxes to a government that provides services they would prefer not to partake in, then that's wrong, IMO.

In summary, as I said, it's all about choice. For me, moral relativism boils down to this: something is only wrong if the person it's being done to does not freely consent without coersion of any kind. Nobody has the right to tell another person what they can, can not, should or should not choose to allow to be done to their own person.

 

[Geoff]

It's a sign of moral maturity, to me, to be able to simultaneously hold strong personal morals and recognize that you are but one human being among billions, coming from a specific place and time, and that nothing makes your personal morals closer to universal truth than anyone else. People in the West in five hundred years will consider some things barbaric that we see as very mundane.

Exactly, the culture has clearly evolved over time. As I understand it, there was no concept of guilt in classical times, merely shame. So, if you did wrongdoing (eg killed your father) it did not matter if you had a guilty mind, merely whether you undertook the crime. So... you will frequently see in greek mythology, "heroes" punished for unknowingly committing a crime. It's postulated that the concept of guilt (in as much as only feeling shame if there is fault) is a renaissance cultural development. Odd that, isn't it, when you start thinking about it...

 

[Seanan]

Because any person who would view a human life as being inferior in worth to that of a dolphin's, is an idiot.

I, recently, heard of a Dolphin that led a mother whale and her calf to safety when humans failed at it. I would, certainly, consider that Dolphin as having a greater worth than Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer. Call me ignorant... (ooops already done lol).... but I would pull the switch any day on either one of those and go to great lengths to save that Dolphin if need be.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

So, any logical arguments here?

 

[aeon]

Inasmuch as a moral judgement is a statement of value assigned to the contextual relationship of the people and/or things being judged, that statement of value is subjective between and among the subject and objects. As such, moral judgement is relative to the chosen context.

Value does not exist outside of a contextual relationship, so no-thing has inherent value, moral or otherwise.


cheers,
Ian

 

[SillySapienne]

something is wrong if the person it's being done to does not freely consent without coersion of any kind. Nobody has the right to tell another person what they can, can not, should or should not choose to allow to be done to their own person.

More or less, absolutely, I can agree with this!!!

So, any logical arguments here?

Uh, yeah!!!!

That all these moror rerativists rove you!!!!!!

 

[disregard]

 

[CzeCze]

Wow, how many times is the title to this thread going to change? It's kinda obnoxious.

Edit:
First people love CC, then they hump Edahn, then they love Edahn -- head is spinning.

Then again, might as well change the thread name everyday to reflect the changing waves of debate. Who will be loving who tomorrow? It's like a moral relativist soap opera.

 

[SillySapienne]

I, recently, heard of a Dolphin that led a mother whale and her calf to safety when humans failed at it. I would, certainly, consider that Dolphin as having a greater worth than Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer. Call me ignorant... (ooops already done lol).... but I would pull the switch any day on either one of those and go to great lengths to save that Dolphin if need be.

You bring up a good point, but I meant in general, which is why I chose the word "a" instead of "all"..

I don't know where I stand with sociopathic serial killers, they're scawwy!!!

And cetaceans are amazing, and intelligent creatures, and yes the one that you speak of probably is more worthy of life than Ted Bundy.....but

Serial killers could be potentially useful for human beings at large, and I am sure neurologists, and neurobiologists, and many others, could obtain insight into the human brain by studying that of a serial killers, i.e. what is it about him that makes him so different, what is empathy, where is that located in the brain, other influential factors, yada yada yada... (I know that we know a lot already, but we can still stand to know a shit ton more).

And sorry if I inadvertently called you ignorant, because that is not the case, my bad.

 

[SillySapienne]

Edit:
First people (hate) CC, then they hump Edahn, then they love Edahn -- head is spinning.

Shhhhhh, he didn't know about that one.

 

[SillySapienne]

It's a sign of moral maturity, to me, to be able to simultaneously hold strong personal morals and recognize that you are but one human being among billions, coming from a specific place and time,. People in the West in five hundred years will consider some things barbaric that we see as very mundane.

Fixed.

 

[Ivy]

CC. Do you realize that you are agreeing with a moral relativist?

 

[SillySapienne]

X_X

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!


Oh well,

 

[Kiddo]

Yay! Thread over! CC has been converted!

 

[SillySapienne]

Yay! Thread over! CC has converted all the moral relativists!

Agreed,

 

[Nocapszy]

That analogy never made sense to me. I have no idea what it means.

That's because it's not an analogy. If you poke someone's eye out, and they poke yours out, now, you've got to poke their out. Then they've got to poke your other out.

Then someone else come in with their bombs to defend you and...

...oh wait. It is an analogy.

 

[Kiddo]

Agreed, I am now a moral relativist and Kiddo is uber sexy and cute.

Well I'm just happy you see it my way.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Question answered!

It's too bad the absolutists can't see that nature doesn't come pre-equipped with moral values. Events are just events. Those judgments we form are dependent on the norms we're surrounded with and the values we create, but they're not inherent to nature themselves; they're projected outward.

Here's a koan covering the same topic:

A monk sat with his three students. He took out his fan and placed it in front of him, saying, http://www.dargate.com/237_auction/237_images/3373.jpg (lol @ copying text off webpages)
"Without calling it a fan, tell me what this is."
The first said, "You couldn't call it a slop-bucket."
The master poked him with his stick.
The second picked up the fan and fanned himself. He too was rewarded with the stick.
The third opened the fan, laid a piece of cake on it, and served it to his teacher. The teacher said, "Eat your cake."

Labels and identities are all projected.

 

[Geoff]

Question answered!

It's too bad the absolutists can't see that nature doesn't come pre-equipped with moral values. Events are just events. Those judgments we form are dependent on the norms we're surrounded with and the values we create, but they're not inherent to nature themselves; they're projected outward.

Here's a koan covering the same topic:

A monk sat with his three students. He took out his fan and placed it in front of him, saying, http://www.dargate.com/237_auction/237_images/3373.jpg (lol @ copying text off webpages)
"Without calling it a fan, tell me what this is."
The first said, "You couldn't call it a slop-bucket."
The master poked him with his stick.
The second picked up the fan and fanned himself. He too was rewarded with the stick.
The third opened the fan, laid a piece of cake on it, and served it to his teacher. The teacher said, "Eat your cake."

Labels and identities are all projected.

Probably true... values and projections all *seem* to depend on the upbringing and social conditioning. There might be some labels and identities that are physically inherent. Some stuff we are born with whether we like it or not. A good example is probably aesthetics following the golden ratio. it seems universal in culture, and is based on a ratio massively present throughout nature. So, maybe, this is an example of an inherent value of "pleasing to behold". I know.. isn't a moral.. I'm just chucking it in the mix*

*damned spacey NPs